^ Are all those haplotypes R-L23+? If so, I already calculated the variance, and compared that, to the variance for the different R-L23+ subpopulations from Myres et al(2010) using the 9 STRs you provided.

Nice work Mark. It is interesting that the G subclades appear in a wider neolithic time-frame.

One thing about R1b M269* and everything M269+ is the dates almost always come out to the 3rd millenium and later on Ken's Generations7 for 67 marker haplotypes.

Thanks. I was in the mode of moving data so I thought I would help JeanL and just compile the data available and run it. I didnt realize that there was that may subclades. To sum up the G2a coalescence generations and ages, the list is below.

You mentioned the period of G2 but there is a huge amount of Caucasus HT's in the oldest P15 and P16 which would be Eneolithic/Bronze ages in Middle East: 4500 to 3300 BC? 1.5K back to founder suggests a very small, if any, growth but around 5K Ybp must have had substantial growth in the Caucasus after first 60 generations or so. After that a SNP mutation occurs on an average of every 11 generations or 275 years. Is that a way to look at it?

And about R-L21, it had been running 3.5- 4.0k ybp but lately in the 111 marker HTs with 435 births per mutation ocurrance (0.3% Rate) as per MarkoH. Would that suggest that a larger number of males born per a single male parent continuing with many generations as in a faster lineage expansion into more branches as shown in the coalescence age estimate?

I prevously I simply performed a counting of mutations from MikeW's Extended 111 marker haplotypes with only L21 positive tested kits and it show 13,912 mutations in 635 haplotypes.

I sent this and other info to Anatole Klyosov and he told me last month that "It gives you 13,912/635 = 21.91 mutations per 111-marker haplotype, accumulated over the time from the presumably common ancestor. Since you know that the mutation rate constant for the 111 marker haplotype equals to 0.198, you immediately obtain 21.91/0.198 = 111-->124 generations, or 3100+/-310 years to the common ancestor. Actually, it is a strange figure. It is not L21. It might indeed be a phantom "common ancestor", a superposition of a number of them from different subclades. I bet the tree gives a number of branches." (*A range of 2,790 to 3,410 Ybp, I actually calculated 3,075 Ybp in my modded spreadsheet)"

I think the difference is due to the use of MarkoH's faster mutation rates basically. There shouldnt be variance between the 67 vs 111 marker, and assuming mike used 25 yr generations.MJost

I used 30 years/generation in all of those graphics I built a couple of months ago. That was under Ken's Gen 7 methodology and for 67 STR haplotypes only. I literally had thousands of haplotypes for some subclades and at least hundreds. I don't know why the 111 STR haplotypes calculations would be different, but it is a much more limited sample size of haplotypes. If you really compare the methodologies and mutation rates used, you probably should re-run the same 111 STR haplotypes but for 67 STRs only.

We should also keep in mind that the graphics Richard R is looking at are mostly interclade ages between pairs of subclades. They put maximums on the ages of the underlying SNP TMRCAs and Coalescence ages. All of these numbers are also within probability ranges, not really single number estimates.

What should the rule be for using a specific number of years for a Generation?? With this entire L21 I dont see that 30 years is correct over thousands of years. Just in the last 1K years only. The founders age difference is about 1K yrs.

The beaker phase was always the latest period when a Europe-wide lineage spread that had the ability to become dominant looks possible in the archaeological record and until recent year even that would have been surprising. Post-beaker dates after 2000BC would be simply impossible to make sense of from the archaeological record for a Europe-wide spread of lineages moving to dominance. The interclade dates for L21, P312 as a whole, L51* calculated by Mike etc do fit beatifully with the beaker period spread. So I would have huge doubts about any dates coming in in the 2nd millenium unless they are intraclades.

What should the rule be for using a specific number of years for a Generation?? With this entire L21 I dont see that 30 years is correct over thousands of years. Just in the last 1K years only. The founders age difference is about 1K yrs.

MJost

I saw something donkeys ago saying anthropology studies supported longer no. of yrs per generation than used by most genealogists and mentioned that here. Unfortunately I couldn't remember where I'd seen it and at the time failed to locate a reference.

Since then I did come across an article which I saved to my computer (which I typically can't find :) but I think this one (which I just googled) covers the subject quite well.

"The length of the sims' lives is governed by a formulabased on data from the United States between 1900 and1930, skewed to produce average life spans of 51.8 yearsfor those reaching adulthood. It is not clear if this is areasonable assumption and may be an overestimate of averagelifespans prior to modern medicine and widespreadagriculture. The fact that a generation in the model istaken to be 30 years may seem rather long, but it resultsfrom the mean age of a newborn's parents, with mothersaveraging a bit under 28 years old and fathers just over 33."

Another issue is in the smaller groups prior to modern technology, each generation has to teach a subsequent generation to perform tasks for continuted survival. Considering a much lower life expectancy, it would seem a younger start in male reproduction?

Another issue is in the smaller groups prior to modern technology, each generation has to teach a subsequent generation to perform tasks for continuted survival. Considering a much lower life expectancy, it would seem a younger start in male reproduction?

I've seen some recommendations to use 30 years/gen for the last 1000 years and 25 years/gen for any time estimates than 1000 years. In other words, use 30 years/gen for any TMRCA less than 33 generations (1000 years) and if the generations (G) are greater then use G - 33 / 25 (years/gen) + 1000.

I'm not sure that it matters so much because these things are not that precise and we have other issues, like possible STR linearity durations, that may be underestimating age. The 30 year/gen may balance that out. We don't know its just not that precise.

However, I think it is a point well taken that these time estimates are not always underestimating age. They "most likely" midpoint time estimates could just as easily be overestimating as underestimating age.

Another issue is in the smaller groups prior to modern technology, each generation has to teach a subsequent generation to perform tasks for continuted survival. Considering a much lower life expectancy, it would seem a younger start in male reproduction?

I've seen some recommendations to use 30 years/gen for the last 1000 years and 25 years/gen for any time estimates than 1000 years. In other words, use 30 years/gen for any TMRCA less than 33 generations (1000 years) and if the generations (G) are greater then use G - 33 / 25 (years/gen) + 1000.

I'm not sure that it matters so much because these things are not that precise and we have other issues, like possible STR linearity durations, that may be underestimating age. The 30 year/gen may balance that out. We don't know its just not that precise.

However, I think it is a point well taken that these time estimates are not always underestimating age. They "most likely" midpoint time estimates could just as easily be overestimating as underestimating age.

Not wanting to add more confusion but I made a note of (Ken Nordtvedt's?) advice on generation length for an early 111T version I tried using but I can't find where I saw it now:

"YrsPerGen*

*Suggest -Enter A2 or A4 or A8 as 25 if less than 1000 years else 30 if more than 1000 yrs or your own family rate."

We now have a great interclade model from KenN which a statical generation engine. Years per generation standard is now required. So where should a specific age lines be drawn? maybe a layered approach should be used.

Example:1) Unders 500 years of coalescence age estimate for a clade then use 33 years per generation.2) between 501 to 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 29 years3) Over 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 25 years

We now have a great interclade model from KenN which a statical generation engine. Years per generation standard is now required. So where should a specific age lines be drawn? maybe a layered approach should be used.

Example:1) Unders 500 years of coalescence age estimate for a clade then use 33 years per generation.2) between 501 to 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 29 years3) Over 2,500 years of coalescence age estimate for clade then use 25 years

Any ideas?

MJost

Yes but they only used 25 yrs per generation, they didn't even explain why they thought this figure better than others.

Personally I don't really see why the figure should change dramatically between 500 yrs, 1000 or 1500 yrs ago the motivating forces would still be the same.

....Ask Klyosov, Nordtvedt, Vizachero (if he is still alive) and also Jean Manco (if she understands something of MR “trans stelas”) how much time it needs so thatDYS19 from 14 becomes 13 (MR: 0,001676)...

It only takes one generation for a mutation to happen, no matter how slow the STR mutation rate. Multiple mutations can happen in one generations. Multi-step generations can happen in one generation.

The problem is looking at any single haplotype and trying to build a TMRCA from it or some other hypothesis. We can drown in crossing a river with average depth of three feet. It is clearly advantageous to have significant sample sizes so that adequate statistical averages can be applied.

Further discussion TMRCAs or statistics should probably occur over on the STR Wars thread or TMRCA thread.

The beaker phase was always the latest period when a Europe-wide lineage spread that had the ability to become dominant looks possible in the archaeological record and until recent year even that would have been surprising. Post-beaker dates after 2000BC would be simply impossible to make sense of from the archaeological record for a Europe-wide spread of lineages moving to dominance. The interclade dates for L21, P312 as a whole, L51* calculated by Mike etc do fit beatifully with the beaker period spread. So I would have huge doubts about any dates coming in in the 2nd millenium unless they are intraclades.

I am reading "Empires of the Word, A Language History of the World", by Nicolas Ostler.

"There are many ways of recounting the history of the world - via the rise and fall of civilisations, the fortunes of nation states, socio-economic systems and patterns, the development of technology, or the chronology of war and military prowess. This book tells the story through the rise and decline of languages. It is a compelling read, one of the most interesting books I have read in a long while."

In his description of the development of Celtic languages he seems to support the theory of Atlantic Celtic from the West and Cunliffe's idea of a Lingua Franca on the Atlantic Facade.Two maps from the book illustrate clearly the division of pCeltic and qCeltic which he distinguishes as Atlantic Celtic and Eastern Celtic and the migration path of Atlantic Celtic along a maritime route and subsequent overlay with Phoenician.The latter map bears an interesting resemblance to the route of L51* and subsequent path of P312.

Greetings from Bucharest fellow hobbyists! I'm glad to see another good site coming together where we can truly be the vanguard of this new science....because that is exactly what we are...not many other fields where people like us can actually make a difference!

After the disappointment of approaching who I felt was the best brain among us for advice on how I could best spend my resources to fill in the black hole of the N Balkans with high-res tests (he stopped answering my questions after I suggested I wanted to approach Polako for help with the R1A's) I got somewhat sidetracked with finishing off a home in S Romania (Zimnicea) and building myself a tennis court there. However, I still want to proceed but I don't have the time to do it all myself, I need someone to approach FTDNA to get me a good deal on circa 30,000$ worth of kits-and I will do the rest....and post it ALL online so YOU all can get cracking at realizing my intuition that this is where most of us came from. I guess VV got scared thinking I wanted something from him besides advice....not to back my "outlandish" theories, LOL!

I am NOT that rich, I DON'T want to waste my time and money, but this is something I truly believe in.

BTW, Iplan to include eye color, height, and many other things in the data so we can learn much more than we do from these studies these "Pro's" do.

My main question is--Why the isn't one of you rich fucks doing this too? How often these days can we amateurs actually pretend it's like it was in the 19th century where we can do something cool for so little $$....I doubt even the Romanian academy of sciences will want to pitch in...maybe I'll ask the EU:p...... 'em, even if nothing comes of the data, I can think of no nobler way of spending my time and money!!

Hey, you actually showed up before coming back from Romania -- I had about given up. Welcome aboard, but watch your language, this forum actually has a moderator. As distinguished from the 'orrible "forumbiodiversity," where the GenX potty-mouth set gets to run things.

Since then there has been a lot of chatter about DF27, mainly because new test results show that it seems to include many of the guys who used to be P312*. That "new" SNP would be interesting to find in Romania. Also L11*, if there still is such a thing.

Getting a range of Romanian samples will be a very good start, but save a little of your budget for having them tested intelligently. The groundwork for that is being laid, but the target moves frequently. Anyway, I'm glad you have found where the knowledge-based discussion is going on (here, and on the Yahoo group for R-P312 and Subclades).

Good luck with your collecting effort -- I hope somebody knows how to get you a couple hundred little bottles with FTDNA bar codes, but I don't.

Why might we be interested in the intersection between R1b1a2(M269)'s and R1b1a1(M73)'s territories? We might consider that their overlapping territory might be a good place to look for their common father, R1b1a(P297).

Such scenario assumes that all R1b1a(P297) was confined to a single region, and that mutations M269 and M73 arose in that same region, it is equally likely that R1b1a(P297) started expanding, and while expanding the M269 mutation arose, and became successful amongst the P297 pool, then at a later or earlier time you had a different expansion where the M73 mutation arose, or even the R1b-V88. So, an intersection might not really give you any details, for all you know that region simply absorbed both M269 and M73, and has nothing to do with P297. Do you think R1b-L21, R1b-Z196 and R1b-U152 all arose in the same area, or in an area that was relatively close?

Yes.

It's probably important to describe what we mean by "relatively close" but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that L21, DF27 (older than Z196) and U152 all arose from somewhere along Mediterranean France through the Alpine regions (lower/middle Rhone, upper Rhine or upper Danube.)

I think that U106 is not too distantly related must be kept into account as well.

It is phylogenetically demonstratable that from L51, descends L11, then P312 and U106, etc. These are real people, not just groups. There was one most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 and he was an L11* person, himself. He had to be younger than L11 and older than P312 or U106, whichever is oldest.

The real issues are just time and space. Space relates to the terrain, distance, routes, risks and technologies available for transport. Time is needed to move travel from one place to the next (without a transporter.) Remember, one has to travel and then survive if not thrive on the other end to leave descendants. An aspect of time calculation is TMRCA aging. The closer P312, U106, U152, L2, L21, DF27 are in age the more close their origins were likely to be.

The geography I described may be wrong, but time and space limitations indicate these large L11 clades were relatively close in origin.

By the way, this works in some real family genealogy circumstances too.

It's probably important to describe what we mean by "relatively close" but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that L21, DF27 (older than Z196) and U152 all arose from somewhere along Mediterranean France through the Alpine regions (lower/middle Rhone, upper Rhine or upper Danube.)

Not really, L21 could have been born in NW France, U152 in a region around Austria, Switzerland or SE France, and DF27 could have been born in Iberia. We will have to look at the variance of each, and see where the variance peaks, and investigate it. Also, P312 being slightly older than L21, U152 or DF27 isn’t an inconvenience, and does not relate to them being born relatively close, it simply means that most of its other lines have gone extinct, hence why its TMRCA resembles that of the oldest of the L21, U152 or DF27 clades.

I think that U106 is not too distantly related must be kept into account as well.

It is phylogenetically demonstratable that from L51, descends L11, then P312 and U106, etc. These are real people, not just groups. There was one most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 and he was an L11* person, himself. He had to be younger than L11 and older than P312 or U106, whichever is oldest.

From the data thus far observed, we can safely conclude that U106 was not born anywhere near Western Europe, perhaps Eastern Germany, but that’s about it. So what if they descend from L51, L11, etc, it doesn’t change the fact that U106 could descend from an L11 person living in Estonia, whereas P312 descend from a different L11 person living in France.

The real issues are just time and space. Space relates to the terrain, distance, routes, risks and technologies available for transport. Time is needed to move travel from one place to the next (without a transporter.) Remember, one has to travel and then survive if not thrive on the other end to leave descendants. An aspect of time calculation is TMRCA aging. The closer P312, U106, U152, L2, L21, DF27 are in age the more close their origins were likely to be.

Not really, who is to say that P312 and U106 weren’t born at relatively close times in locations 1000 miles apart. Is there anything against that?

The geography I described may be wrong, but time and space limitations indicate these large L11 clades were relatively close in origin.

I see no indication of anything, you are simply postulating a probability, that is just as likely as many others. Their similar TMRCA doesn’t translate them into being born relatively close, that just not proven.